Okay, I liked this information on the page itself, personally. This is information describing the toon, so I think it belongs on the toon's page. The graph isn't that unweildly, is it? - Joshua 23:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Candy Bar is an item. Tons of one-time items get there own pages. This is more of a... background. Plus this information is part of the email, so it belongs on its page. The Candy Bar page's is just supplementary, and not essential, to learning everything there is to know about the email. - Joshua 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. Lets put this on the Candy Bar Page Under Ingredients. --Dacheatbot·Communicate 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

These aren't the ingredients of the candy bar. Well, some of them may be, but not enough to be placed there. And were you even listening to my comment earlier? How would putting them on that page address the issues I brought up? -_-; - Joshua 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta vote that this can probably just be shrunk and merged with the candy product page. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really like it on candy product. I vote for expanding it and leaving it here.

I suggested moving the periodic table here because when it was on the email page it was rather distracting and seemed out of place. There's no harm in its having its own page, and the email page's look is cleaner without it. - Qermaq - (T/C) 05:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is eventually merged into candy product, I'd like for it to be made smaller. It was way too big when it was on there before. - Qermaq - (T/C) 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If reducing its size is the price we have to pay for moving it, then I think we should leave it here. — It's dot com 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Second to all of that – it's too big to put on the article, and making it any smaller would be ugly. --phlipTC 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The image from the toon should certainly be in the article. The full table should not, though, in order to make the page less bulky. Remember, many users are on dialup and this bloats the page size considerably. - Qermaq - (T/C) 05:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Physical screen space and the amount of transferred HTML do not necessarily correspond to each other. The table could be tiny or huge, but as long as it contains about the same amount of textual information, then it will weigh in at just under 6 KB. — It's dot com 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the data size is what matters for download. But balance the current download with less scrolling and somewhat lighter download against a somewhat heavier download and much extra scrolling, and I think the current setup is preferable. - Qermaq - (T/C) 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It should have its own section on the page, so viewers would not get confused. --Einstein runner

I don't know whether to ask this here or on the toon talk or where, so I'll start here: Shouldn't we make the labels full black, or at least a darker color? They were only gray in the toon because they were a background element. — It's dot com 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. It sounds fine to me either way, but if we sharpen the black, we should probably sharpen the other colors too. - Joshua 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I loaded the table into Photoshop and autocorrected the contrast. Then I used those values to resaturate the colors here. — It's dot com 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to see the text more black. - Qermaq - (T/C) 05:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The colors as they are now are what they would have been if they hadn't been lightened for the background. Besides, the dark blue color is nice. — It's dot com 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I must have been remembering an old version. The text is fine now. - Qermaq - (T/C) 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours are now what they really would have been if it wasn't faded into the background. The table in the email is these colours, with a 17% alpha over the blue background. --phlipTC 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize you got your colors from the Flash file, but it doesn't take into account the filter (or transparency or whatever) that they used. As a result, the hues are all wrong. In particular, the green column should correspond to the finished green, not the bright yellow of the Flash shape. I have put the colors back to match the finished toon. — It's dot com 14:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed down from my spiel on IRC, for everyone to see:

<Dot_com> Phlip: when I was correcting the colors the first time, if I just hit autocorrect and didn't hold the RGB values constant relative to each other, then I got what was in the Flash file
<Dot_com> when I *did* hold them constant relative to each other, I got what's in the article, which preserves the hues
<Phlip> maybe, but I think my version looks better, really
<Dot_com> I disagree; we should match the *finished* product as close as possible
<Dot_com> the only reason we didn't go with the really light version was because it was hard to read
<Elcool> besides, Dot com's version looks better
<Phlip> I disagree, I think it looks kinda grody
<Phlip> especially the yellowy-greeny put down the left
<Phlip> when the black was also that faded colour, in the toon, it looked ok because it looked like a watermark, and your eye compensated... but with the full black it all has a puke-green tint to it
<Phlip> all or none
<Phlip> and not that it really matters, but I made this image to check that the colours were right: [1]
[...]
<Phlip> it's just... if we wanted to make it look like the toon, we'd make it the faded bluey-gray on faded bluey-colours like it is in the toon. The only reason we didn't is because we want it to look better, and be more readable, yes?
<Phlip> I say we should do that by undoing a filter and showing what TBC actually drew, and you say we should do that by adding another filter and resaturating the colours
<Elcool> better - everyone prefer a different color
<Elcool> more readable - yes. it is now
<Phlip> mine ends up looking like pastels, yours ends up looking like it's underwater
<Elcool> as long as it's readable and close to the toon...
<Phlip> but that's the thing, it's not close to the toon now, not really, it's much more oversaturated
<Phlip> look at the toon, you see them as a blue-tinted yellow, red, orange and blue
<Phlip> yellow, pink, orange and blue
<Phlip> look at the page, you see them as green, purple, brown and blue
<Phlip> look at mine, you see them as non-blue-tinted yellow, red, orange and blue
<Elcool> hmmm
<Elcool> by re-re-relooking at the email
<Elcool> i can see your point
<Elcool> the left one does look more yellow then green
<Elcool> so.... you got my vote
<Dot_com> the one in the toon looks green
<Phlip> yeah, but it's a very yellowy green, and looks different to the green in the article, despite being the same hue
<Elcool> for me it's like Strong Sad:
<Elcool> yellow
<Phlip> 'cause in the toon you compare it to the blue writing and the blue background, on the page you compare it to the black writing and the white background.
<Dot_com> er, I dont' see that
<Phlip> as I said, you see it as a watermark and compensate... similar to those optical illusions where they copy something out of the background and paste it in the foreground, and make it look much smaller - you compensate based on context.
<Phlip> well, I see it like that
<Dot_com> I see it as a bolder version of the toon

I don't want to make this into a vote, especially for something so minor, but it would be nice to reach concensus on this... naturally I think the pastels look better. For comparison, here is the faded table from the toon, here is Dot com's green version and here is my pastel version.--phlipTC 15:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

After comparing them all side by side, I still favor the green version. The yellow version doesn't look like what's actually in the finished email at all. — It's dot com 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely with It's Dot Com here. I've seen both versions, and the yellow one just looks way off. The green one, on the other hand, seems like a perfect match. - Joshua 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll note the last "element" listed is number 316. Why choose that number? Well, ever watch a baseball game and see the "John 3:16" sign held up? That's the old "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And it's the number for "Those Wafer Things". Why else choose this number? - Qermaq - (T/C) 05:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, it could be a completely random number... Google finds 172 million pages with "316" in them, of those about 25 million contain the word "John", and of those less than 1000 contain "For God so loved the world" (There are more if you put 3:16, but very few with just 316). Besides, the closest TBC have come to religious references in H*R is "Holy" in "Holy crap", and "xmas" in the filenames for the Decemberween toons... --phlipTC 09:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are other times when TBC have referenced Christmas, but that's beside the point. It is an interesting coincidence, though, even though it probably is just, you know, a coincidence. —Has Matt?(talk) 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I put it here and not there. But it was interesting. - Qermaq - (T/C) 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Maybe I'm just missing something, not really following religion, but... what do "those wafer things" have to do with John, God, and Jesus? -YK 06:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside...there may be, but need not be - being that the PToE is built based on the number of protons in the nucleus, it may simply be that the non-numbered entries (17-102) simply don't make candy elements, instead generating other non-candy food elements. Interestingly, Karen's choice for the numbers in the Mt-Wa row (the Lanthanoid/Actinoid representative row), ISN'T numerically correct - 103 is actually the first number AFTER the Actinoids. StarLion 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)